given; though they were kept in repair by Government. The rent was afterwards lowered one half; but even that was far too much. He had confined a former motion of his to the Isle of Wight; his present motion should relate to the whole of the temporary bar. racks throughout England, many of which had been used but a short time

in the course of the year. He then concluded with moving, that there be laid before the House, an account of all the temporary barracks in the kingdom, hired by Government from the year 1793 to 1806: that the whole account should contain 15 columns, comprehending the various circumstances relating to the buildings, &c.

Mr Robson, in the course of his speech, stated one case of a house, which being taken by a Lady for 30l. was let for a mess of officers at 70l. and the reason assigned by this fair dame was, that as she saw every body robbing the pub. lic, she conceived she had a right to get something in the scramble.

Lord H. Petty admitted the existence of considerable abuses in that department, and after some conversation, the motion was agreed to.

Wednesday, July 16.

In committees, resolved that the Lords of the Treasury be empowered to raise money by a Lottery of 100,000 tickets; that a bounty of 5s. 6d. per cwt. be allowed on oil of vitriol export. ed, and that a million be granted to the East India company, to repay so much of the sum expended by them in the public service.

SCOTS FORFEITED ESTATES.

On the motion of Sir John Sinclair, the House went into a Committee on the Report respecting the Scots forfeit ed estates accounts (for which see page 659.) when

Mr Percival rose to oppose the grant ing of the sums proposed by the committee; he stated that he considered the funds proceeding from the forfeited estates as having been devoted to what was called Highland purposes exclusively: he considered the grant of such large sums as were proposed for building a new Court of Exchequer and a Lunatic A. sylum at Edinburgh, as being for the benefit of the Lowlands of Scotland entirely. He then entered at considera Sept. 1806.

ble length into the case of Mr Robertson of Strowan, a Gentleman whose estates had been forfeited for the rebellion of his ancestors in the years 1690 and 1715, but restored to him by the act of Parliament in 1784; the case of this Gentleman, he stated, was one of peculiar hardship; the interest of the heritable debts on all the other forfeited estates had been regularly paid by Government out of the rents, so that upen the landlords getting them restored in 1784, they received them on the same footing as their ancestors held them.-In the case of Mr Robertson, however, the interest of the debts on his estate had not been paid, so that upon getting it restored, he was in a worse situation than any other proprietor in similar circumstances.

The Lord Advocate replied to Mr Percival at some length, and with his usual ingenuity; he ridiculed the idea that the Highlanders of Scotland were not to be benefited by the erection of the Court of Justice, and a Lunatic Asylum; and as to the case of Mr Robertson of Strowan, he would remind the Hon. Member opposite of the good old proverb, that a "Gift horse should not be looked in the mouth."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer sug. gested that Mr Robertson of Strowan might obtain some compensation upon application to the Committee; when, after considering the Report of the committee, it was resolved,

"That the sum of 9641. out of arrears of rent of the Perth estate, of rogol, out of the arrears of the Lovat estate, and of 12,000l. out of the unexhausted balance and surplus of the rent of the different forfeited estates in Scotland, be applied to the purposes of taking down the old and erecting a new Exchequer Chamber in Edinburgh. That 7500l. out of the same unexhausted balances be applied towards the erection of a harbour at Wick in Caithness. That Sool. per annum for ten years be granted out of the same fund to the Highland Society of Scotland, for the purpose of en. couraging agriculture in that part of the country; the Society becoming bound to pay the annuities to the surviving officers of the Board of Forfeited Estates during the said period. That the sum of 2000l. be granted towards the erection of a Lunatic Asylum in Edin

burgh.

burgh. And that the residue of said unexhausted balance or surplus be vested in the Commissioners for Roads and Bridges in Scotland, for the purpose of promoting Canals, Iron Railways, Harbours, Roads, and Bridges, in that Country."

Thursday, July 17.

The Royal Family annuity bill, Lord Nelson's annuity bill, and several others, were passed. The following account was presented of offices and salaries annexed there to held by certain branches of the Royal Family:

The Prince of Wales, as Colonel of the 10th Dragoons, 1085l. 17s. 6d; The Duke of York, as Ranger of Windsor Forest, rated 401. Allowance for fire wood, &c. 11. For New Lodge, &c. 30l; As Commander in Chief, 33711. 1s. 3d. For first Regiment of Guards, rated 6681; As Colonel of the 60th Regt. 2381; The Duke of Clarence, for half pay, 730l; For Bushy Park, 1281. gs. 8d; The Duke of Kent, First Regt. of Foot 775. 12s. 6d; As Governor of Gibraltar 36431; The Duke of Cum berland, as Colonel of the 15th Regt. 10851. 175. 6d; As Lieut. General on the Staff, &c. 13481. 8s; The Duke of Cambridge, as Colonel of the Coldstream Regt. of Guards, 6681. 5s. 7d; The Duke of Sussex as Lieut. General on the Staff, 13481. 8s; The Duke of Gloucester, ditto, 13481. 8s.

* The publication of the proceedings on Lord Melville's trial has given rise to a law suit in Chancery. Mr Gurney, the short-hand writer, was the person empowered by the Lord Chancellor, to take down the whole proceedings, and to publish them under his Lordship's authority. This Mr G. did in a large 8vo. volume, which sold for ios. 6d. A few days after this publication, Messrs. Longman and Rees published another e dition of this trial at the price of 5s.Mr G. applied to the Lord Chancellor for an injunction to restrain these defendants from printing and publishing the said trial, he being the only person authorised to do so,

The Attorney Gen. for Mr Gurney, contended, that the House of Lords had a legal right to appoint a person to publish an accurate report of their proceedings, to prevent the circulation of false or incorrect statements; and in particular quoted the case of the trial of the Duchess of Kingston in 1776, where Mr Bathurst, who had purchased the MS. from the short-hand writer, obtained an injunction against Mr Kearsley. Mr Percival argued on the other side, that no branch of the Legislature nor any Court of Justice, had such a legal right, that being vested by law in the Crown alone.

The Lord Chancellor considered the question as certainly involved in some difficulty, but the case of the Duchess of Kingston was a precedent so directly in point, that he granted the injunction.

It is to be remarked, that some booksellers in Edinburgh having published an edition from Longman's copy, the latter applied to the Court of Session for an interdict against them, which the Court refused, not considering such a publication as literary property.

3

trose, and Lords Boringdon, Hardwicke, Hawkesbury, and Mulgrave. It was supported by the Duke of Gloucester, Earls Spencer, and Moira, and Lords Caernarvon, Grosvenor, King, Roslyn, Holland, and Grenville. The latter observed, that it had been asked what statesman, with a statesman's mind, had ever proposed to any country such a measure for adoption? He would declare the statesman whose authority he would offer for the measure. It was that consummate statesman (Mr Pitt,) whose irreparable loss the country had so recently to deplore. It was from him that he had learned the principle. It was one which he knew occupied his great mind, and was decisive in his opinion for many years. There was not a single argument that had been offered against the bill that had not been urged by himself against the principle to that great statesman, in repeated discussions between them on the subject, and that was not ably and convincingly answered by his lamented friend. The Committee divided on the clause--ayes 94, noes 31.

The Earl of Aboyne presented several petitions from Peers of Scotland, stating the vacancy which they conceived to have been caused in the Representative Peerage of that country, in consequence of the Earl of Eglintoun, one of the sixteen Representative Peers of Scotland in the present Parliament, having been created a Peer of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and praying such relief therein as to the house should seem meet.-Ordered to lie on the table, but no other proceeding ensued. Wednesday, June 18.

The House resolved into a commit= tee; and Lord Grenville addressed their Lordships on the subject of the administration of Justice in Scotland. His attention he stated was called to the subject by the immense arrears of appeals from that country, which had accumulated to an extent productive of the greatest inconvenience, both to the suitors and to that House. further enquiry, he found that the Court of Session was reduced to a state of sinilar embarrassment, by the multiplici. ty of suits. In seeking a remedy for this most serious evil, he had applied to those who, from their official situation and professional practice in the Courts below, were most capable of affording

On

him information. The great source of the evil existed in the constitution of the Court itself, and in the mode of carrying on suits, by written memorials, pleadings and arguments, all of which must be separately perused and studied by each of the fifteen Lords of Session. After the minutest investigation, he had digested the changes which he had conceived to be absolutely necessary in the constitution of this Court, and in appeals to it from inferior judicatories, into a series of resolutions, which he would now propose for the adoption of the Committee, intending, when the Report should be presented, to move that it should be taken into consideration on a day which was likely to be beyond the duration of the present Session. In the interval, the subject would receive all that attention which it so peculiarly claimed from Parliament and the people of Scotland, and it would be brought forward next session with all the advantages resulting from that circumstance. His Lordship then went at considerable detail into the constitu tion and practice of the Court of Session, and described the substance of each resolution proposed as a remedy for the existing inconveniences. The principal alterations which he suggested were, that the Court shall be divided into three Chambers of concurrent jurisdiction, each consisting of five Judges that the pursuer should be required in his summons to state the facts of the case, separate from the law, and the defender, in his defences, to deny or admit them; that upon such denial or admission, the fact may be directed to be tried by an issue of a Jury, at the application of either party, or the discretion of the Court; that the judgment of each Chamber may be revised by the remaining ten Judges, sitting in a Court of Review; and that appeals shall be to the House of Lords only from the final judgment of the Court of Review.

His Lordship then stated a variety of regulations calculated to expedite appeals, and to diminish their number.-Among these was one respecting the granting of costs in cases of vexations appeals. This was a point on which he did not now mean to propose any resolutions, but to which he wished their Lordships to turn their minds. Many causes were brought before the House without any hope of ultimate success.

The

The appellant merely sought to gain a certain advantage by delay, and that was his only object. This practice could only be done away by giving larger costs in future. In many cases indeed no extent of costs could be a remedy against this evil. But this might be adopted, that when the Court agreed, the parties about to appeal should give security, that in case of the reversal of the decree, they should indemnify the other party for the expence and trouble they put him to. The more he considered this subject, the less difficulty he saw in it, and the more did it appear likely to promote the ends of justice.

He would not recommend the immediate adoption of this plan respecting

costs.

Another matter he had to state was one of detail, but of great importance. It was proposed to abolish, or at least to limit as much as possible, extraction of records, documents, &c. in causes in Scotland which had grown into a great abuse, volumes being thus frequently made up in one cause, the expence of extracting which alone might amount to more than the value of the object in dispute. It was proposed, the refore, to confine this system of extracting to a mere exemplification of the record, the pleadings, and the interlocutors. His Lordship added, that the interest of many individuals might be injured by the proposed arrangements, but Parliament would no doubt award them a proper compensation. After several other statements on collateral points of law, his Lordship concluded by moving a number of resolutions on the subject.

Lord Hawkesbury stated his satisfaction at finding this subject, which had -occupied much of the attention of the last administration, taken up by the Noble Lord, and expressed his concurrence in almost all the propositions advanced by him. The Duke of Montrose and the Lord Chancellor said a few words to the same effect. The resolutions were agreed to nem. diss. (See the full Report in Mag. for July, p. 497.)

Thursday, June 19.

Lord Grenville moved that the consideration of the charges against Judge Fox, be postponed for two months, his Lordship being decidedly of opinion that the House of Lords is not the

proper place for the discussion of such charges;-that it has no original Criminal Jurisdiction; and that to attempt to give it any such jurisdiction, is to confound the powers given by the Constitution, and to establish a precedent highly dangerous and inimical to the true interests of justice. This opinion was controverted by the Marquis of Abercorn, Lords Eldon and Hawkesbury, &c. The motion was carried by a majority of 25 to 16.

Tuesday, June 24.

Lord Grenville presented a message from the King, recommending a more effectual provision for aged, disabled, and wounded seamen, and signifiying that his Majesty would relinquish a certain proportion of prizes to be condemned for that purpose.

Lord Warwick stated that he had delivered to both the late and present administration, a plan of fair and equal taxation; but as neither seemed disposed to act upon it, he should submit it to Parliament.

Lord Grenville, after describing in glowing terms the injustice and misery produced by the slave trade, moved that their Lordships agree with the Commons in their resolution for the necessity of its abolition.

Lord Hawkesbury opposed the resolu tion, as being couched in terms too abstracted. His opinion was, that the only effect of the abolition of the slave trade by this country, would be to transfer it to those states who conducted it on principles less humane. He moved the previous question.

The original motion was supported in the further progress of the debate, by the Bishop of London, the Lord Chancellor, Bishop of St Asaph, Lord Spencer, Lord Ellenborough, Lord Hol land, and Lord Grosvenor; and opposed by Lord Westmoreland, Lord Sid mouth, and Lord Fitzwilliam; the two latter, however, objected rather to the form than the principle of the motion.

Lord Grenville then spoke in reply; and, before sitting down, gave notice that as soon as the resolution was dispesed of, he should move an address to his Majesty, requesting him to concert mea sures with foreign powers, for mot completely carrying its purpose into efect.

The

The motion for the previous question was rejected on a division, by a majority of 41 to 20, and the resolution was put and carried without a division: as was also the motion for the address to his Majesty.

Tuesday, July 8.

Lord Melville brought forward his promised motion relative to the appointment of a Governor General in India, and the recall of Sir George Barlow. His Lordship contended that it was neither the intention of Parliament, nor - of Mr Pitt's bill, to controul the Court of Directors, but to assist them. He was anxious to state his proposition fairly and distinctly, and to assert, that if Ministers gave to the clause granting the power of recall to the Crown, the construction of its empowering a capricious, ungrounded recall, it would be exercising a wanton and arbitrary power, directly opposite to the spirit and meaning of the clause; and he would broadly maintain, that if the clause was used to compell the Court of Directors to comply with the recommendation of Ministers, such an attempt was an open, direct, and unjustifiable violation of the spirit and provisions of the act; at least Ministers should be willing and able to state the motives and reasons that in duce them to resort to such an exercise of power. Was Sir George Barlow unfit for the situation he held? or why, in such an instance, was a prerogative of the Crown put in force, which had not been exercised for 22 years?If he was right in his construction of the clause, he was sure it ought to be exercised with temper and circumspection; if not, the worst consequences would ensue, and, instead of a sober and solid Covernment, there would be nothing but confusion and anarchy in the management of our India affairs. His Lordship concluded with moving an address to, his Majesty, praying that there be laid before the House such extracts of dispatches as related to the treaties of peace lately concluded, and also such correspondence as had taken place between the Court of Directors and Government, respecting the appointment of a Governor General to India, and the recall of Sir George Barlow.

Lord Grenville opposed the motion, as no instance could be adduced, in which private communications relative

to the fitness of individuals for any particular office, had been laid before Parliament. The recall of Sir G. Barlow was sanctioned by the law; but he had at present all the powers of Governor, and would continue to exercise them till the arrival of a successor in India.

The motion was supported by Lords Hawkesbury, Eldon and Redesdale; and opposed by Lords Minto, Bucking hamshire, Ellenborough, and the Lord Chancellor. Lord Melville replied, and signified, that though it was not his mtention to divide the House on the subject, the papers he had moved for would in one way or other meet the public eye. The motion was of course negatived.

Friday, July 11.

Earl Spencer moved the Commitment of the general training bill. Lord Melville could see no reason for imposing this additional burden on the country, when we had 3 or 400,000 volunteers already disciplined. Earl Moira, while he supported the bill, bore testimony to the zeal and admirable discipline of the Scotch volunteers. So full was his confidence in them, that he apprised Go. vernment that he would answer for the safety of that part of the country without the aid of a single regular regiment. He would have had no hesitation in meeting with them any equal body of French that could have landed in that part of the country.-Lords Westmoreland, Eldon and. Hawkes. bury, opposed the bill. Lords Sidmouth and Grenville supported it. The latter made this important declaration, "that we must henceforth make up our minds, whether in peace or in war, to have a large regular military establishment, and that in addition, we must lay down such a permanent system, as shall render us at all times an armed nation and a military people." The bill was committed, and reported without any amendment.